Research and Development
Transcription
Research and Development
United States E n v i r o n m e n t a l P ro t e c t i o n Agency EPA/600/R-00/100 November 2000 Research and Development LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE OF EPA-CERTIFIED PHASE 2 WOODSTOVES, KLAMATH FALLS AND PORTLAND OREGON: 1998-1999 Prepared for Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Prepared by National Risk Management Research Laboratory Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 FOREWORD The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future. The National Risk Management Research Laboratory is the Agency's center for investigation of technological and management approaches for reducing risks from threats to human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods for the prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources, protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites and-groundwater; and prevention and control of indoor air pollution. The goal of this research effort is to catalyze development and implementation of innovative, cost-effective environmental technologies; develop scientific and engineering information needed by EPA to support regulatory and policy decisions; and provide technical support and information transfer to ensure effective implementation of environmental regulations and strategies. This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic longterm research plan. It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients. E. Timothy Oppelt, Director National Risk Management Research Laboratory EPA REVIEW NOTICE This report has been peer and administratively reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. EPA-600 / R- 00-100 November 2000 Long - Term Performance of EPA-Certified Phase 2 Woodstoves, Klamath Falls and Portland, Oregon: 1998/1999 Prepared by: Lawrence H. Fisher, James E. Houck, and Paul E. Tiegs OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. 5465 SW Western Avenue, Suite G Beaverton, OR 97005 and James McGaughey Eastern Research Group, Inc. 900 Perimeter Park Morrisville, NC 27560 EPA Contract 68-D7-0001, WA 2-04 EPA Project Officer: Robert C. McCrillis National Risk Management Research Laboratory Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20460 Disclaimer The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development funded and managed the research described here under Contract No. 68-D7-0001 to Eastern Research Group, Inc. It has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii Executive Summary Woodstoves have been identified as a major source of particulate and polycyclic organic matter (POM) emissions. For this reason, new source performance standards (NSPS) were promulgated for wood heaters. Wood heaters sold after July 1, 1992, had to be certified for low emissions, meet the most stringent requirements of the NSPS, and are referred to as Phase 2 certified. Of concern has been the fact that laboratory and field studies have shown that certified wood heaters can physically degrade with use and their air emissions commensurately increase. The objective of this study was to evaluate the condition and air emissions from old phase 2 certified wood heaters installed in homes and used regularly for home heating since the 1992/1993 heating season or earlier. Study stoves were inspected and their conditions were documented. Particulate and POM samples were collected from the stoves during normal inhome use with an automated woodstove emission sampler (AWES). The AWES was developed specifically for the in-home collection of air emission samples from residential wood burning appliances and data developed from its use have previously been used to calculate particulate emission factors published in AP-42. In addition to data obtained from the use of the AWES, ancillary information such as the history of each woodstove, installation characteristics and cordwood properties were compiled for the study. Sixteen stoves were evaluated in the study, eight in Klamath Falls, Oregon, and eight in Portland, Oregon. All 16 stoves showed the effects of use. However, only six were degraded to the point that it was speculated that their condition would significantly affect air emissions. An extensive data base from 43 week-long test runs was developed. No direct statistical correlation between emissions and wood moisture, burn rate or the conditions of the stoves could be made due to the number of variables associated with the real-world in-home use of woodstoves. However, the particulate emissions for stoves in homes in Portland were on the average higher than for stoves in homes in Klamath Falls. This result is consistent with the average higher fuel moisture content and burn rate characteristic of the Portland portion of the study as compared to the Klamath Falls portion. The particulate emission factors of the certified Phase 2 stoves evaluated in this study appear to have increased with use, but on the average, after about seven years they still have lower emissions than uncertified conventional stoves. In addition, it was clear from the results that the emission rates for Phase 2 stove models reported as part of the NSPS certification process do not represent emission levels of same stove models inhomes after extended use. iii The data demonstrate that particulate emissions can not be used as a surrogate measurement for POM emissions of woodstoves. Further, POM emission factors, as based on the 7-PAH and 16-PAH values, determined from the in-home use of woodstoves in this study were lower than the POM emission factors previously published in AP-42. This observation is significant because the AP-42 emission factors are the basis for the national emission inventory of POM for which residential wood combustion was identified as the single largest source. iv Table of Contents Page Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Section 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section 2.0 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Woodstoves, Fuel, and Ambient Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 Field Measurements, Laboratory Support, and Data Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Section 3.0 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.1 Condition of Stoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.2 Particulate Matter Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.3 Polycyclic Organic Matter Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Section 4.0 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Section 5.0 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Section 6.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Appendix A Photographs of Woodstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Appendix B Quality Assurance History — Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler . . . . B-1 Appendix C Summary of Automated Emissions Sampler Data by Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 Appendix D Organic Compound Analysis Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 v List of Tables Table Page 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 Home Code, Model, and Chimney Characteristics for Klamath Falls Woodstoves . . . . . 6 Home Code, Model, and Chimney Characteristics for Portland Woodstoves . . . . . . . . . . 7 Wood Data for Klamath Falls Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Wood Data for Portland Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Principal Field and Laboratory Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Derived Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7-PAH and 16-PAH Surrogates for POM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 Home Code, Model, and Condition for Klamath Falls Woodstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Home Code, Model, and Condition for Portland Woodstoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Individual Test Results for Klamath Falls Stoves KF01 – KF04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Individual Test Results for Klamath Falls Stoves KF05 – KF08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Individual Test Results for Portland Stoves P01 – P04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Individual Test Results for Portland Stoves P05 – P08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Average Fuel Moisture, Particulate Emissions, Burn Rate, and Outdoor Temperature for Stoves in Klamath Falls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Average Fuel Moisture, Particulate Emissions, Burn Rate, and Outdoor Temperature for Stoves in Portland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Summary of Particulate Emission Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Comparison of Average Particulate Emission Factors (5H Adjusted) to AP-42 Values . 44 Comparison of Particulate Emission Factors of Stoves in Current Study to Particulate Emission Factors for the Same Stoves from Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . 45 Comparison of Stove Particulate Emission Rates to U.S. EPA Certification Values . . . 46 Organic Compound Emission Factors and Rates For Stoves in Klamath Falls Homes . 48 Organic Compound Emission Factors and Rates for Stoves in Portland Homes . . . . . . 50 Organic Compound Emission Factors and Rates for Overall Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Comparison of POM Emission Factors for Stoves in Current Study to AP-42 POM Emission Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 vi List of Figures Figure 2-1 2-2 Page Schematic Diagram of the Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Flow Chart Summarizing Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 vii Section 1.0 Introduction Residential wood combustion (RWC) has been identified as a major source of particulate matter (PM) and polycyclic organic matter (POM) air emissions. During 1997, RWC contributed an estimated 12% of the sum of the total PM10 emissions attributed to all fuel combustion, industrial process, and transportation sources combined (1). RWC was also identified as the largest single source of POM during 1990 (2). Approximately 72% of the cordwood burned annually in the United States in the category of residential wood combustion is in woodstoves (2). (The remaining 28% is mostly burned in fireplaces.) There were an estimated 9.3 million woodstoves in homes during the 1997-1998 heating season (3). Due to the level of emissions attributed to woodstoves, standards of performance were promulgated for new residential wood heaters (4). All wood heaters sold after July 1, 1992, have to meet the most stringent Phase 2 particulate emission limits of the standards. These standards were 4.1 gram per hour for catalytic stoves and 7.5 grams per hour for non-catalytic stoves. The limits for catalytic stoves were set lower than non-catalytic stoves since the presumed deterioration of the catalyst over time was estimated to result in emissions from catalytic wood heaters over their useful lifetimes approximately equal to non-catalyic wood heaters. Furthermore, there has been concern about the overall physical deterioration of wood stoves with use and the commensurate increase in air emissions. This concern has been confirmed in both laboratory (5,6) and in-home studies (7-9). Physical degradation coupled with higher PM emissions has been documented for some stoves. Not only are accurate airshed inventories of PM and POM fundamentally important for health and environmental assessments, state and local agencies in areas of PM10 nonattainment have been directed to take performance degradation into consideration in their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) when calculating credits from replacing non-certified stoves with certified stoves (10). The replacement of noncertified stoves with Phase 2 certified stoves remains a viable option for reducing airshed pollutant levels and obtaining PM10 SIP credits because, as of 1997, more than 80% of the woodstoves in use were still older non-certified units (11). In addition, because over 90% of the PM10 emissions from residential wood combustion are also PM2.5, emission credits may be very important for possible future PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The primary objective of the study was to select Phase 2 stoves that were installed in homes prior to the fall of 1992 in order to assess the level of long-term degradation and potential 1 increase in PM and POM air emissions of older Phase 2 certified stoves under actual in-home usage. Woodstoves in homes in both Portland, Oregon, and Klamath Falls, Oregon, were selected because Portland is in U.S. climate zone three and Klamath Falls is in U.S. climate zone two. The average heating degree day (HDD) value for Portland is 4109 and the average HDD for Klamath Falls is 6600. The intent behind the selection of stoves in the two climatologically dissimilar cities was to produce results more widely applicable to woodstove usage in the nation as a whole than if homes in a single city were selected. In addition, nine Phase 2 stoves installed in homes in Klamath Falls were previously studied during the 1989-1990 and 1991-1992 heating seasons (8,12,13). Therefore, a secondary objective of the study was to utilize as many of these homes as possible in the current study to help document phase 2 stove degradation and commensurate emission increase. Sixteen homes were targeted for study during the 1998-1999 heating season. Two in the study group were homes in Klamath Falls that had phase 2 woodstoves that were part of the earlier studies. Emission samples were collected for three one-week periods from woodstoves in each home using the Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler (AWES) previously developed by OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for similar studies. Samples collected with the AWES were analyzed for particulate matter and organic compounds. The specific organic compounds analyzed included the seven and sixteen POM compounds needed to calculate the 7-PAH and 16-PAH values, respectively, which are used as surrogate indicators for POM. The PM and POM surrogate emission factors (mass of pollutant emissions per unit mass of fuel) were compared against their emission factors tabulated in AP-42 for woodstoves (14). The PM emission rates (mass of pollutant emissions per time of stove operation) measured under actual in-home use for each woodstove model were compared against their certified emission values listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (15). The PM emissions from this study and from the previous studies were compared for the stoves in the Klamath Falls homes that were part of earlier studies. Cordwood tree species, cordwood moisture, the amount of cordwood burned, burn rates, ambient temperature during testing, a description of woodstove use in each home, chimney characteristics, and the condition of the stoves were also documented as part of the study. Photographs of each stove’s installation and components that showed degradation have been included as Appendix A. 2 Section 2.0 Methodology The basis of the study was the use of the AWES for sample and data collection. A description of the AWES is provided in Section 2.1. Woodstove selection and inspection and cordwood characterization are discussed in Section 2.2. Details of the field sampling program, supporting laboratory procedures and data reduction are provided in Section 2.3. 2.1 Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler The AWES was developed to quantify emissions of particles for residential wood burning appliances while they are in normal in-home use. It is small in size and operates unattended in home settings. Due to the temporal variability in emissions from wood burning appliances, the AWES is also designed to collect long-term integrated samples necessary to provide mean values. Studies conducted with the AWES have provided the majority of the data base used for particulate emission factors development by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for residential wood combustion (14). The AWES has been used to quantify emissions from woodstoves, masonry heaters, pellet stoves, and fireplaces (5-8,12,13,16-36). Due to its extensive use, the AWES has undergone U.S. Environmental Protection Agency supported quality assurance evaluations during the period 1986 to 1992 (Appendix B). A schematic diagram of the AWES is shown in Figure 2-1. Detailed descriptions of its principles of operation, supporting laboratory requirements, calibration, associated data reduction and uncertainty estimates have been published in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy reports (16,19) and quality assurance plans (Appendix B). For sampling purposes, the AWES is placed adjacent to the wood-burning appliance in study homes. For woodstove applications, a stainless steel inlet probe is typically attached to the chimney (stove pipe) 30 cm above the flue collar of the stove. Sample is withdrawn at a rate of approximately one liter per minute. The flow rate is maintained by a calibrated orifice. Particulate samples, including condensible particles, are captured with a heated filter followed by an XAD-2® resin cartridge. All interconnecting tubing, holders and hardware exposed to the sample are made either of stainless steel or Teflon® to maintain sample integrity. After sample collection, the chimney gas is passed through silica gel to protect downstream components from condensate. The oxygen content of the chimney gas is measured with an electrochemical cell. 3 Figure 2-1 Schematic Diagram of the Automated Woodstove Emission Sampler 4 The sample flow is then returned to the wood-burning appliance chimney above the point where the sample was withdrawn. Room temperature and chimney gas temperature are measured with type K thermocouples. The chimney gas temperature is measured within the chimney at the same location as the sample is withdrawn. A key component of the AWES is the data logging system. The system records date, time, oxygen content, room temperature, and chimney gas temperature at regular intervals. The oxygen content of the chimney gas, along with the mass of wood burned, allows for the estimation of total chimney gas flow during sampling which is needed for the subsequent calculation of emission rates and emission factors. The record of chimney gas temperatures allows for the total time of appliance operation over the course of the sampling duration to be determined. In addition to data recording, the system is programed to control the sampling frequency, sampling duration and sampling period. For this study, the AWES was programed to sample for two minutes once every 15 minutes for one week. The system is further programed to turn the sampling pump on during the programmed two minute sampling time only if the woodstove is in operation as determined by the chimney temperature in order to avoid collection of sample material when the appliance is not in operation. A threshold chimney temperature of 100oF (38oC) was used as an indicator of woodstove operation. 2.2 Woodstoves, Fuel, and Ambient Temperature A total of 16 woodstoves, eight in Klamath Falls and eight in Portland, were targeted for study. One home in Klamath Falls was dropped from the study after one week due to a family crisis. An additional home was added to the study in Portland to replace the dropped home. Out of the nine possible phase 2 certified woodstoves that were part of previous studies in Klamath Falls two were included in this study. An attempt was made to include the other seven in the current study but it was not possible either due to stove replacement since the last studies or an unwillingness of the current home occupants to participate in this study. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 list the home codes, woodstove models, and chimney characteristics for all installations. The chimney characteristics were documented because draft and commensurate fire intensity which is affected by chimney height have been implicated in the degradation of woodstove components. A photograph of each stove was taken to illustrate its installation (Appendix A). 5 Table 2-1 Home Code, Model, and Chimney Characteristics for Klamath Falls Woodstoves Home Code Stove Modela Chimney Characteristics Quadrafire 2100 Non-Catalytic 8 Foot Vertical Rise KF01 Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic 27 Foot Vertical Rise Haughs 171E Non-Catalytic 14 Foot Vertical Rise Earthstove 1003C Catalytic 14 Foot Vertical Rise Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic 18 Foot Vertical Rise Waterford 104 MKII Non-Catalytic 21 Foot Vertical Rise Earthstove 1400HT Non-Catalytic 14 Foot Vertical Rise Country T-Top Non-Catalytic 20 Foot Vertical Rise KF02b KF03c KF04 KF05 KF06 KF07 KF08 a Single Story Home Two Story A-Frame Two Story Home Single Story Home Single Story Home Two Story Home Single Story Home Two Story A-Frame All stoves were installed prior to the 1992/1993 heating season. b Stove in home KF02 in this study was referred to as Home 3 or CK03 in the 1990 Energy, Mines and Resources Canada (EMRC) Study(13). c Stove designated as KF03 in this study was referred to as H-5 or WK05 in the 1990 Wood Heating Alliance (WHA) Study(12). Additionally, this stove was referred to as KF04 in the 1992 Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) study(8). 6 Table 2-2 Home Code, Model, and Chimney Characteristics for Portland Woodstoves Home Code P01 P02 P03 P04 P05 P06 P07 P08 Stovea Chimney/House Trailblazer Genesis 2000 Catalytic 8 Foot Vertical Rise Single Story Manufactured Home Lopi Answer Series Non-Catalytic 15 Foot Vertical Rise Lopi 380-96 Non-Catalytic 11 Foot Vertical Rise Single Story Home Single Story Manufactured Home Lopi Flush Bay-96b Catalytic 22 Foot Vertical Rise Lopi Flex-95 Catalytic 22 Foot Vertical Rise Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic 10 Foot Vertical Rise Lopi 520-96 Non-Catalytic 13 Foot Vertical Rise Vermont Castings Defiant Encoredc Catalytic 24 Foot Vertical Rise Two Story Home Two Story Home Single Story Home Single Story Home Two Story Home a All stoves were installed prior to the 1992/1993 heating season. b Lopi Flush Bay-96 is now called Freedom. c The Vermont Castings Defiant Encore stove was installed when stove was EPA Phase I certified. Since the installation, the stove has been added to EPA Phase II certification list without changes to the stove’s design. 7 Each stove was inspected and the home occupants were interviewed regarding its historical and current usage. A description was made and photographs were taken of any components that showed degradation (Appendix A). Participants in the study were either provided with, or reimbursed for the cost of locally available cordwood fuel. Fuel moisture was measured with a Delmhorst moisture meter. If the meter indicated that the wood moisture was greater than 30% (dry basis), the moisture content was determined through drying/gravimetric analysis in the laboratory. Average fuel moisture by week and by home was based on measurements on approximately 10% of the cordwood fuel pieces. Pre-weighed bundles of wood were provided to the occupants of each home prior to each week of sampling. A portable spring scale was used to measure the wood weight. The unused pieces of each bundle were weighed at the end of the sampling week. The amount of wood burned during the week-long tests was calculated by adding the weights of the bundles used (including the weight of wood used in the partly consumed bundles). Wood Data for Klamath Falls are compiled in Table 2-3. Wood Data for Portland are compiled in Table 2-4. Lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, juniper and Douglas fir cordwood was used in the Klamath Falls appliances. Douglas fir, maple, alder, oak, birch, lodgepole pine and cherry cordwood was used in the Portland appliances. The mass burned, percentage of the wood burned, and moisture content of cordwood by species in each home during each sampling week are shown in Tables 2-3 and 2-4. The average wood moisture by cordwood tree species ranged from 9.8% to 26.8% on a dry basis (9.0% to 21.1% on a wet basis) for Klamath Falls and from 18.1% to 112.1% on a dry basis (15.3% to 52.8% on a wet basis) for Portland. The elemental composition (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen) was determined for each species of wood by proximate/ultimate analysis (ASTM D3178). Elemental data were used to calculate the stoichiometric volume of gas produced from a given mass of wood burned during sampling which is, in turn, were used in conjunction with AWES oxygen measurements to estimate the total chimney gas flow. Average outdoor temperatures were calculated for each sampling week as an indicator of heating demand. The average values were calculated from the daily average temperatures recorded at nearby weather stations for Klamath Falls (37) and Portland (38). The recorded daily average temperatures were simply the average of the daily high and low temperatures in each location. 2.3 Field Measurements, Laboratory Support, and Data Reduction The principal field and laboratory measurements with associated uncertainties used to calculate the emission and ancillary results are listed in Table 2-5. Fuel measurements as discussed in Section 2.2, infield measurements made by the AWES, laboratory measurements made on the collected samples, and measurements associated with AWES calibration are included in this table. 8 Table 2-3 Wood Data for Klamath Falls Homes Home Code KF01 KF02 Sampling Week Mass Burned (Wet lbs) Species % Species Moisture % (Dry Basis) A 296.3 Lodgepole 100 20.2 B 319.4 Lodgepole 100 24.5 C 170.3 Ponderosa 100 31.4 A 432.7 Ponderosa 100 20.8 B 457.3 Ponderosa 100 21.5 C 313.8 Ponderosa 100 19.6 280.0 Lodgepole 95 14.6 14.7 Juniper 5 13.2 346.9 Lodgepole 95 18.8 18.3 Juniper 5 18.3 203.0 Lodgepole 50 21.8 203.0 Douglas Fir 50 21.4 B 467.0 Lodgepole 100 19.5 A 303.2 Juniper 100 10.4 B 155.7 Juniper 100 9.8 C 379.3 Juniper 100 11.3 A 277.5 Lodgepole 100 11.7 A 349.2 Lodgepole 100 12.6 B 294.5 Lodgepole 100 11.7 C 496.5 Lodgepole 100 15.8 A 525.1 Ponderosa 100 26.8 B 522.1 Ponderosa 100 25.4 C 567.6 Ponderosa 100 15.7 B KF03a C A KF04a KF05 KF06a KF07 KF08 a There are no data for week A for KF03 and week C for KF04 due to loss of sample and/or laboratory data. There are no data for weeks B and C for KF06 due to death in the family. 9 Table 2-4 Wood Data for Portland Homes Home Code P01 Sampling Week Mass Burned (Wet lbs) Species % Species Moisture % (Dry Basis)a A 573.1 Douglas Fir 100 24.0 B 557.1 Douglas Fir 100 21.0 C 570.3 Douglas Fir 100 22.8 51.8 Maple 20 105.3 13.0 Douglas Fir 5 36.4 194.3 Alder 75 106.6 227.5 Oak 100 18.5 110.1 Douglas Fir 50 35.4 110.1 Oak 50 19.1 A 71.6 Douglas Fir 100 18.3 B 160.4 Douglas Fir 100 18.3 94.0 Douglas Fir 50 19.8 94.0 Birch 50 27.0 A 184.1 Oak 100 18.3 B 286.3 Oak 100 18.5 C 200.7 Oak 100 18.4 53.5 Lodgepole 50 20.6 53.5 Cherry 50 18.1 36.0 Lodgepole 50 19.8 36.0 Cherry 50 18.2 42.0 Lodgepole 50 19.3 42.0 Cherry 50 18.8 A P02 B C P03 C P04 A P05 B C (Continued) a See equation 6. 10 Table 2-4 (continued) Wood Data for Portland Homes Home Code Sampling Week A P06 B C A P07 B C Mass Burned (Wet lbs) Species % Species Moisture % (Dry Basis)a 181.7 Maple 20 105.3 48.4 Douglas Fir 5 36.4 678.4 Alder 75 106.6 164.4 Maple 20 104.2 41.1 Douglas Fir 5 38 616.3 Alder 75 112.1 155.0 Maple 20 101.1 38.7 Douglas Fir 5 35.4 581.1 Alder 75 107.9 214.6 Maple 20 105.3 53.7 Douglas Fir 5 36.4 804.9 Alder 75 106.6 227.9 Maple 20 104.2 57.0 Douglas Fir 5 38 854.7 Alder 75 112.1 894.4 Douglas Fir 100 24.8 46.7 Douglas Fir 10 21.8 419.9 Oak 90 25.1 16.8 Douglas Fir 10 21.9 151.1 Oak 90 25.4 A P08b B a See equation 6. b There are no data for week C for P08 due to loss of sample data. 11 Table 2-5 Principal Field and Laboratory Measurements Units Method of Determination Estimated Precision Estimated Accuracy kg Spring Scale + 0.1% + 0.1% ASTM D2016 ( >30%) + 10% + 5% Delmhorst Model RC Moisture Meter ( <30%) + 1% Absolute + 1% Absolute % by Mass ASTM D3178 + 1% Absolute + 1% Absolute 4. Mass of Particles Collected on Filter mg Analytical Balance + 0.3% + 0.3% 5. Mass of Particles Collected in Probe and Connecting Tubing mg Removal/Solvent Evaporation/Analytical Balance + 0.3% + 0.3% 6. Mass of Semi-Volatiles Collected on XAD-2® mg Extraction/Solvent Evaporation/Analytical Balance + 0.3% + 0.3% l/min Bubble Flow Meter/Digital Timer + 3% + 2% Parameters 1. Wood Fuel Weight 2. Wood Fuel Moisture 12 3. C, O, N, H Composition of Wood 7. Sample Flow Rate % by Mass (Dry Basis) (Continued) Table 2-5 (continued) Principal Field and Laboratory Measurements Estimated Precision Estimated Accuracy AWES/Electrochemical Sensor + 0.8% absolute + 0.8% Absolute in. Hg Mercury Barometer + 0.5 mm Hg + 0.5 mm Hg min Data Logger Internal Clock + 0.1% + 0.1% F Type K Thermocouple + 4 oF or + 0.75% (Whichever is Greatest) + 4 oF or + 0.75% (Whichever is Greatest) 12. Sampling Period min Data Logger Internal Clock + 0.1% + 0.1% 13. POM Compounds Contained in Particles µg EPA SW-846 Method 8270C + 20% + 20% 14. POM Compounds Contained in Vapor Phase µg EPA SW-846 Method 8270C + 20% + 20% Parameters 8. Chimney Gas O2 9. Mean Barometric Pressure (for Flow Calibration) 10. Duration of Sampling 13 11. Temperature (Chimney, Ambient) Units Method of Determination % by Volume o Laboratory measurements were made on three AWES sample components: 1. The probe and interconnecting tubing; 2. The heated filter; and 3. The XAD-2® resin cartridge. For this study since both PM and POM surrogates were measured, the sample material was split into two portions for analysis. Figure 2-2 is a flow chart summarizing the analysis procedures. The sample probe and tubing connecting the probe to the heated filter were rinsed with a 50/50 mixture of methylene chloride and methanol. A stainless steel wire brush was used to remove material from the sample probe prior to the 50/50 methylene chloride/methanol mixture rinse. Both the removed material and solvent rinse were collected in a single beaker. One half of the mixture was taken to dryness and weighed to calculate its PM content. One half was combined with the XAD-2® extract and reduced to 5 mL volume for organic compound analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (SW-846 Method 8270C). The pre-weighed filter was placed in a desiccator until a constant weight was achieved. The difference between pre-and post-weights allowed for the mass of particles collected on the filter to be determined. The filter was spiked and then extracted with methylene chloride, reduced in volume to 5 mL and analyzed for organic compounds by SW-846 Method 8270C. Surrogates and matrix spikes were added to the XAD-2® resin cartridge for the POM determination. The resin was then extracted with a Soxhlet extractor using methylene chloride. One half of the extract was evaporated to dryness for mass (PM) determination and one half was added to the probe and interconnecting tubing rinse for organic compound analysis by SW 846 Method 8270C. The masses of PM and POM surrogates contained in each of the three components were added to obtain the total mass captured with the AWES system. Table 2-6 lists the intermediate and final parameters derived from the field and laboratory measurements. Except for the POM compound emission factors and rates (items 10 and 11 in Table 2-6), the precision and accuracy uncertainties for the intermediate and final derived parameters were determined from the estimated uncertainties of the principal field and laboratory measurements shown in Table 2.5 following standard propagation of error procedures (16,19). The uncertainties for the POM compound emission factors and rates shown in Table 2-6 were estimated from data from similar studies (23,25,39,40). 14 Figure 2-2 Flow Chart Summarizing Analysis Procedures 15 Table 2-6 Derived Parameters Estimated Precision Estimated Accuracy AWES Data Logger System/Lab Support + 0.08 + 5% g/kg (Dry) AWES Data Logger System/Lab Support + 16% + 17% g/hr AWES Data Logger System/Lab Support + 20% + 18% 4. Dry Mass of Wood Burned kg Fuel Scale + 0.1% + 0.1% 5. Percent of Time Stove in Operation % Type K Thermocouple/Data Logger + 3% + 3% <30% – Delmhorst Moisture Meter < + 2% Absolute < + 2% Absolute >30% – Gravimetric Analysis + 4% + 2% Fuel Scale/Data Logger + 0.1% + 0.1% Electrochemical Sensor/Data Logger + 0.3% Absolute + 0.69% Absolute Uncorrected + 0.2% Absolute Corrected F Type K Thermocouple/Data Logger + 4 oF or + 0.75% (Whichever is Greatest) + 4 oF or + 0.75% (Whichever is Greatest) 10. Mass of POM Compounds/Mass Dry Wood Burned µg/kg (Dry) AWES Data Logging System/ Lab Support + 50% + 50% 11. Mass of POM Compounds/Time of Stove Operation µg/kg (Dry) AWES Data Logging System/ Lab Support + 50% + 50% Parameters Units Method of Determination 1. Mass Particles/Volume of Chimney Gas g/m3 2.Mass Particles/Mass Dry Wood Burned 3. Mass Particles/Time of Stove Operation 6. Mean Fuel Moisture by Species % (Dry Basis) 7. Mean Wood Burn Rate kg/hr (Dry) 8. Mean Chimney Gas Oxygen Concentration 9. Mean Chimney Gas Temperature % by Volume o 16 The following formulas were used to calculate the derived parameters listed in Table 2-6. (M P ) ( F R )(S D ) Mass of particles/volume of chimney gas = (1) where: MP = FR SD = = Mass of particles collected by the AWES (sum of the particles collected on the probe and interconnecting tubing, on the filter, and on the XAD-2® resin) Flow rate of the AWES, and Sampling duration of the AWES. ( M P )(S V ) ( F R )(S D )(1 − [% O 2 2 0 .9 % ]) Mass of particles/mass dry wood burned = (2) where: Mass particulate emissions (MP) = Total chimney gas volume (TF) = SV = (M P ) (T F ) ( F R )(S D ) (S V )( M D W ) %O2 1 − 2 0 .9 % Volume of chimney gas per unit mass of dry wood from the stoichiometric combustion of wood, obtained from proximate/ultimate analysis data and a small correction for carbon monoxide levels characteristic of EPAcertified Phase 2 woodstove emissions, MDW = Mass of dry wood burned during sampling (see equation 4), and, %O2 Percent of oxygen in chimney gas measured with the AWES. = 17 Mass particulate emissions/time of stove operations = ( M P )(S V )( M D W )(1 0 0 ) ( F R )(S D )(S P )(W O )(1 − [% O 2 2 0 .9 % ]) (3) where: SP = Sampling period (usually one week), and, WO = Percent of time stove in operation (see equation 6). n Dry mass of wood burned = MWW ∑ X 1 + M D C i i =1 (4) i where: i = the wood species, Xi = the fraction of the total wood of the ith species used, MDCi = the mean moisture content (dry basis) of species i (see equation 6), and MWW = Mass of wet wood burned. The wood used for the duration of the testing was pre-weighed. Fuel use was the difference between amount of weighed wood at the start of the test, and the amount of weighed wood remaining at the end of the test. The data were summed over the time periods of interest. Fraction of time stove was in operation The woodstove was determined to be in operation whenever chimney gas temperatures exceeded 38° C (100° F). Temperature was determined continuously by a thermocouple and the value was recorded every fifteen minutes. The fraction of time the stove was operating was calculated as follows: 18 Percent of time woodstove operates (WO) = # of readings where Tf > 100 °F Total # of readings X 100%. (5) Mean fuel moisture by species Mean fuel moisture was determined each week by successive measurements of fuel stockpiled for immediate burning. The average moisture for each species of fuel wood was determined from at least ten percent or more of the total wood pieces for each species of wood for each sampling week. Average weekly fuel moisture (dry basis) for species i (MDCi) = 1 n n ∑MC j (6) j =1 where: MCj = Moisture value of the jth measurement (n >6). When a moisture meter reading exceeded 30 percent moisture (dry basis), a sample was taken and moisture determined by the standard oven drying technique (ASTM D2016) In these cases: MDCi = W BD − W AD W AD where: MDCi = Dry basis moisture content of species i, WBD = Weight of sample before drying, and WAD = Weight of sample after oven drying. 19 (6a) Mean Wood Burn Rate Mean wood burn rate = ( M D W )(1 0 0) (S P )(W O ) (7) where: MDN = Mass of dry wood burned during sampling (see equation 4), SP = Sampling period, and WO = Percent of time stove in operation (see equation 6). Mean Chimney Gas Oxygen Content in Percent Mean chimney gas oxygen content in percent (% O2) = 1 n n ∑O 2i (8) i =1 where: O2,i = oxygen concentration of the chimney gas of the ith reading (%), and n = total number of valid readings. Chimney oxygen was recorded every fifteen minutes and averaged over each sampling week or fraction of the sampling week of interest. Mean Chimney Gas Temperature 1 n Mean chimney gas temperature (Tf) = n ∑ (T ) f i i where: (Tf)i = Mean chimney gas temperature for the ith valid reading, and n = Number of valid readings in the sampling period. 20 (9) Mass of POM compounds / mass of dry wood burned The mass of each individual 7-PAH and 16-PAH compound’s emissions were summed to get the 7-PAH and 16-PAH POM surrogate mass emission values, respectively. By substituting these values for the particulate mass emission value (MP) in equation 2, the emission factors (mass POM surrogate/ mass of dry wood) for the 7-PAH and 16-PAH POM surrogates were calculated. The seven and 16 individual compounds that make up the 7-PAH and 16-PAH surrogates are listed in Table 2-7 and the calculations conducted according to Equation (10). Table 2-7 7-PAH and 16-PAH Surrogates for POM 1 Acenaphthene 2 Acenaphthylene 3 Anthracene 4 Benzo(a)anthracene* 5 Benzo(a)pyrene* 6 Benzo(b)fluoranthene* 7 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 8 Benzo(k)fluoranthene* 9 Chrysene* 10 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene* 11 Fluoranthene 12 Fluorene 13 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene* 14 Naphthalene 15 Phenanthrene 16 Pyrene * 7-PAH Compounds 21 ( P A H )(S V ) ( F R )(S D )(1 − [% O 2 2 0 .9 % ]) Mass of POM/mass dry wood burned = (10) where: (P A H ) Mass of PAH emissions (PAH) Total chimney gas volume (TF) SV = = (T F ) ( F R )(S D ) (S V )( M D W ) = %O2 1 − 2 0 .9 % , , Volume of chimney gas per unit mass of dry wood from the stoichiometric combustion of wood, obtained from proximate/ultimate analysis data and a small correction for carbon monoxide levels characteristic of EPAcertified Phase 2 woodstove emissions, MDW = Mass of dry wood burned during sampling (see equation 4), and %O2 Percent of oxygen in chimney gas measured with the AWES. = Mass of POM compounds/time of stove operation The 7-PAH and 16-PAH POM surrogate mass emission values were substituted for the particulate mass emission value (MP) in equation 3 to calculate the emission rates (mass POM surrogate/ time of stove operation) for the 7-PAH and 16-PAH surrogates. Mass particulate emissions/time of stove operations = ( P A H )(S V )( M D W )(1 0 0 ) ( F R )(S D )(S P )(W O )(1 − [% O 2 2 0 .9 % ]) where: SP = Sampling period (usually one week), and WO = Percent of time stove in operation (see equation 6). 22 (11) In the conduct of field measurements, laboratory support and data reduction tasks, the quality assurance procedures that have been developed for previous U.S. EPA studies (see Appendix B) were followed. In addition a project specific quality assurance plan was developed and approved for this study. Two key quality assurance activities were an independent check of 10% of the data reduction and the processing of field blanks. 23 Section 3.0 Results and Discussion The results are presented in three sections. The condition of the stoves along with their history and current use and a description the home settings is provided in Section 3.1. Particulate emission results are presented Section 3.2. POM emission results are presented in Section 3.3. 3.1 Condition of Stoves Table 3-1 lists the home code, stove model, and a summary of the stove condition and usage for homes in Klamath Falls. Photographs of these stoves and degraded components are provided in Appendix A. A narrative description for the stoves in Klamath Falls by home code (home codes KF01 through KF08) follows. KF01 The QuadraFire 2100 (Appendix A, Photograph 1) was installed September 10, 1991 and has been owned and operated by the same person. It is located in a dusty environment in a ceramic shop with poor insulation. It is in overall good condition except for the ceramic blanket which is pushed up partially blocking the exhaust flow (Appendix A, Photograph 2). The blanket installation was repaired before testing was conducted for this study. The stove is used as the primary heat source for the small business and is usually operated for more than 16 hours per day during the heating season. The chimney is cleaned and inspected once per year. The owners of the business live adjacent to the shop and use an oil furnace as a supplemental heating source when the shop is unoccupied. The owner typically burns two to three cords of lodgepole pine cordwood a year, and feels that the stove has heated the shop well. However, the owner noted that the stove was difficult to light, and sometimes initially difficult to keep burning. These problems were probably due to the ceramic blanket partially blocking the exhaust flow. KF02 The Pacific Energy Super 27 (Appendix A, Photograph 3) was provided to the homeowner as part of the 1990 Wood Heating Alliance (WHA) study (12). The home is a two-story A-frame style. The previous owners had the baffle replaced (Appendix A, Photograph 4) approximately six years prior to the study with an identical baffle because the baffle assembly had degraded to the point that the stove would not heat the home adequately. The baffle was replaced by a professional installer. Otherwise, the 24 Table 3-1 Home Code, Model, and Condition for Klamath Falls Woodstoves Home Code Stove Modela Stove Condition and Usage KF01 Quadrafire 2100 Non-Catalytic Impaired / Normal Weard Minimal Use during Heating Season KF02b Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic Impaired / Normal Weard Extensive Use during Heating Season KF03c Haughs 171E Non-Catalytic Normal Wear Extensive Use during Heating Season KF04 Earthstove 1003C Catalytic Normal Wear Extensive Use during Heating Season KF05 Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic Impaired Regular Use during Heating Season KF06 Waterford 104 MKII Non-Catalytic Impaired Regular Use during Heating Season KF07 Earthstove 1400HT Non-Catalytic Normal Wear Extensive Use during Heating Season KF08 Country T-Top Non-Catalytic Normal Wear Extensive Use during Heating Season a All stoves were installed prior to the 1992/1993 heating season. b Stove in home KF02 in this study was referred to as Home 3 or CK03 in the 1990 Energy, Mines and Resources Canada (EMRC) Study (13). c Stove designated as KF03 in this study was referred to as H-5 or WK05 in the 1990 Wood Heating Alliance (WHA) Study (12). Additionally, this stove was referred to as KF04 in the 1992 Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) study (8). d The stove was impaired by use but was repaired and in the “normal wear” condition at the time of this study. 25 installation has not changed since the WHA study. The chimney system is inspected and cleaned once a year. The owner typically burns five cords of lodgepole pine or ponderosa pine each burning season. The unit is used as the primary heat source and fired 24 hours per day. The owner feels that it heats the home well. KF03 The Haughs 171E woodstove (Appendix A, Photograph 5) was given to the current owner as part of the 1990 WHA study (12) and was also used in the 1992 Bonneville Administration (BPA) study (19). It is in overall good condition showing only normal wear, with the exception of cracking along the rear level of secondary air ports (Appendix A, Photograph 6). The unit has been operated and maintained by the same home owners that participated in the 1990 and 1992 studies and there have been no changes in the installation of this unit. They feel that the stove has heated the home well. Approximately five cords of mixed juniper, cedar, and lodgepole pine are burned per heating season. KF04 The Earthstove model 1003-C (Appendix A, Photograph 7) was installed in early 1992. It is designed for mobile home installation getting its combustion air from outside the home. It is in good overall condition. The owner felt that the catalytic combustor was no longer working and needed replacement. Visual inspection did reveal some thermal wear. However, temperatures observed in the flue and at the installed catalyst temperature indicator during testing showed that the catalyst was in proper working order. The door gasket was in good condition, as were the refractory elements. The owner felt that the unit heated the home well. It is used as the primary heat source, and fired 24 hours per day. Typically, four to five cords of Douglas fir are burned per heating season. KF05 The Pacific Energy Super 27 (Appendix A, Photograph 8) was installed November 23, 1991, and has been owned and operated by the same person. It is in overall fair condition with the exception that the front right portion of the baffle area and the ceramic blanket are degraded (Appendix A, Photograph 9). The stove is used as the primary heat source and operated for more than 16 hours per day during the heating season. The chimney is cleaned and inspected once per year. The owner uses the stove as the primary heat source during the burning season, and feels that it heats the home well. Typically two to three cords of juniper are burned per year. KF06 The Waterford MKII (Appendix A, Photograph 10) was installed on July 12, 1991, and has been operated by the same owners. The chimney is cleaned and inspected once per year. It is in good operating condition except for the front portion of the baffle which is 26 in a severely degraded state (Appendix A, Photograph 11). Such degradation is probably either the result of thermal or chemical breakdown of the baffle material. Chemical breakdown such as was seen on the baffle can be caused by burning trash. Thermal breakdown can be caused by intense fire conditions such as can be caused by a strong draft which is in turn can be caused by a tall chimney. It is interesting to note that the chimney in this home is tall (approximately 21 feet total vertical rise). This stove and a Phase I certified woodstove located in another part of the house are used as the primary heat sources during the burning season. The owner feels that the Waterford stove does a good job of heating the section of house in which it is located. Three to four cords of mixed lodgepole pine and Douglas fir are burned in the stove annually. KF07 The Earthstove 1400 HT (Appendix A, Photograph 12) insert was installed early 1992, and has been owned and operated by the same person. The stove is fitted with a stainless steel flue collar and stainless steel lined flue. The refractory elements show some wear (Appendix A, Photograph 13). The steel components of the stove are in good condition. However, the secondary inlet tube shows some warping (Appendix A, Photograph 14). The door gasket is in fair condition, with some degradation on the combustion side of the glass seal. The owner typically burns three to five cords of lodgepole pine per year. The stove is used as the primary source of heat. The owner feels that the unit has done a great job heating the home, and mentioned that it can easily overheat the house. KF08 The Country T-Top woodstove (Appendix A, Photograph 15) was installed during the 1992/1993 heating season. The stove is the only source of heat for the home and is fired continuously during the burning season. The firebox is in overall good condition. The secondary air tubes show some flaking on their surfaces. The door gasket is in usable but degraded condition. The stove is used as the primary heat source for the home. The owner burns four to five cords of lodgepole pine per winter, and is satisfied with the performance of the stove. Table 3-2 lists the home code, stove model, and a summary of the stove condition and usage for homes in Portland. Photographs of these stoves and degraded components are provided in Appendix A. A narrative description for the stoves in Portland by home code (home codes P01 through P08) follows. 27 Table 3-2 Home Code, Model, and Condition for Portland Woodstoves Home Stovea Stove Condition and Usage P01 Trailblazer Genesis 2000 Catalytic Impaired Extensive Use All Year Long P02 Lopi Answer Series Non-Catalytic Impaired Minimal Use during Heating Season P03 Lopi 380-96 Non-Catalytic Normal Wear Minimal Use during Heating Season P04 Lopi Flush Bay-96b Catalytic Normal Wear Minimal Use during Heating Season. P05 Lopi Flex-95 Catalytic Normal Wear Minimal Use during Heating Season P06 Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic Normal Wear Extensive Use during Heating Season P07 Lopi 520-96 Non-Catalytic Normal Wear Extensive Use during Heating Season Vermont Castings Defiant Encorec Catalytic Normal Wear Regular Use during Heating Season P08 a All stoves were installed prior to the 1992/1993 heating season. b Lopi Flush Bay-96 is now called Freedom. c The Vermont Castings Defiant Encore stove was installed when stove was EPA Phase I certified. Since the installation, the stove has been added to EPA Phase II certification list without changes to the stove’s design. 28 P01 The Genesis 2000 (Appendix A, Photograph 16) was installed on September of 1991. The unit has been used as the primary heat source in the home since installation and is operated 24 hours a day. The unit is in overall fair condition. The baffle (Appendix A, Photograph 17) and catalyst (Appendix A, Photograph 18) are operational but show significant thermal degradation. The stove is used as the primary source of heat in this home and is actually fired 24 hours per day, all year long. The unit is used all year long not just in the burning season due to the fact that the home is located at higher elevation outside the Portland metropolitan area where the climate is cooler. The homeowner does not like to restart the stove. Hence, even in the summer it is allowed to operate in the “dampered down” mode during the daytime. Approximately twelve cords of wood are burned per year. P02 The LOPI Answer series (Appendix A, Photograph 19) was installed in 1991 and has been owned and operated by the same person. The baffle refractory is in good condition. The firebox side and rear refractory show some degradation. The door and window gasket are in good condition, as is the front secondary air tube. However, the support for the front secondary air tube has degraded to the point where it has lost structural strength (Appendix A, Photograph 20). The rear secondary air tube is partially blocked by creosote (Appendix A, Photograph 21). The creosote buildup indicates that the unit is typically operated with combustion air restricted (the damper shutdown). The thermal degradation of the front secondary air tube support indicates that the unit receives most of its combustion air though the front of the unit. The unit is used part time by the owners who feel satisfied about the stove’s ability to heat their home. They typically burn one to two cords of mixed oak and Douglas fir per year. P03 The LOPI 380-96 (Appendix A, Photograph 22) was installed in October of 1992, and owned and operated by the same person. Overall the stove is in excellent condition. It is only used part-time during the burning season. The door and window gaskets are still in excellent condition, as are the fire brick, fire brick hangers, and secondary air tubes. The primary heat source for the home is a heat pump. The owner is satisfied with the performance of the stove. One to two cords of mixed Douglas fir and birch are burned each year. P04 The LOPI Flushbay-96 (Appendix A, Photograph 23) was installed in 1992 by the existing owner. It is equipped with a flexible stainless steel flue pipe at the flue collar that leads to a solid vertical stainless steel liner. The unit’s door and glass seals are in excellent condition. The firebox refractory is in good condition. However, the secondary air tube shows signs of warping and flaking (Appendix A, Photograph 24), but is still in good functional condition. 29 The unit is used part time by the owner who feels satisfied about the stove’s ability to heat the home. Typically, one to two cords of oak are burned per year. P05 The LOPI Flex-95 (Appendix A, Photograph 25) was installed in November of 1990, and has been owned and operated by the same person. The baffle refractory and baffle supports, along with the secondary air tube, are all in good condition. The side and rear fire brick show cracks, but no visible sign of thermal degradation. It is likely that the cracks in the fire brick are from physical impact. The catalyst is in good operating condition but shows fly ash accumulation. The Interam seal surrounding the catalyst has been disturbed and dislodged in places (Appendix A, Photograph 26). This is apparently from removing and replacing the catalyst without replacing the Interam seal. The owner typically burns one to two cords of mixed cherry and lodgepole pine per year. The stove is used part time during the heating season. The owner is satisfied with its performance. P06 The Pacific Energy Super 27 (Appendix A, Photograph 27) was installed in 1990. After the initial installation, the stove was temporarily removed for floor repair and replaced back into the original installation configuration. The door gasket is in good condition, while the fire brick shows some thermal wear. The unit is in fair operational condition except for a sagging baffle (Appendix A, Photograph 28). Although the baffle sags, there are no visible cracks in it. At the time of this study, the stove was the home’s only source of heat. An oil furnace in the home was not operational. The owner typically burns one to two cords per year. However, three to four cords were burned during the study year due to the oil furnace not being in service. The owner feels that the stove heats the home well. P07 The LOPI 520-96 (Appendix A, Photograph 29) is in overall good condition. It was installed in October 1992. It is used extensively during the heating season. The stove was the only working source of heat in the home at the time of the study, and was used 24 hours a day. The door gasket and baffle are all in good condition, while the secondary air tube shows signs of flaking (Appendix A, Photograph 30). However, the air tube is still in good operational condition. The owner typically burns two to three cords per winter, but burned four to five cords during the winter of the current study because an oil furnace which is normally used was not operational during the study period. The owner is satisfied with the heating performance of the stove. P08 The Vermont Castings Defiant Encore (Appendix A, Photograph 31) is in good working condition, including the door gaskets and refractory elements. It was installed in 1989. The unit has a top vented exhaust rising about four feet where it is connected to a terra 30 cotta lined masonry chimney. The chimney cap allows rain into the chimney. The water makes its way to the connection where it drips out into the back left corner of the stove. The unit is used as a secondary heat source for the home. The owners indicated that they are happy with the stove. They typically burn one to two cords of oak per year. Out of the sixteen stoves inspected, six degraded to the point of probably impairing emission performance. Two of these were repaired by the homeowner prior to conducting emission testing for this study. Consequently, the emission results of this study represent emissions from 12 units in the “normal wear” condition and from four units in a significantly degraded condition. Because there were so many variables (burn rate, cordwood tree species, wood moisture, chimney height, historical burning practices, and stove model) there was no clear cause and effect relationship observed. It was, however, noted by the inspector, that in general, routine stove maintenance had not been done and that this maintenance and/or minor repairs would have kept all stoves in acceptable working condition. 3.2 Particulate Matter Emissions The results for each of the 43 valid one-week testing runs are summarized in Appendix C and in Tables 3-3 through 3-6. Emissions were determined for a range of normal wood burning practices such as occur in actual home installations. For example, week-long averages of burn rates ranged from 0.6 dry kg of wood per hour to 2.0 dry kg of wood per hour and average wood moisture contents ranged from 9.8% to 105.0% on a dry basis (8.9% to 51.2% on a wet basis). It should be noted that not only are the emission results representative of the range of actual emissions from the in-home use of woodstoves, they also represent credible mean values for each set of conditions since they inherently average the emissions from a considerable mass of wood combusted over numerous burn cycles during each sampling week. The amount of wood burned over the one-week tests ranged from 77.3 kg to 517.4 kg (58.8 kg to 325.4 kg on a dry basis). Not surprisingly, emission factors and emission rates calculated for the week-long tests were variable. The factors ranged from 1.9 g/ dry kg to 20.8 g/dry kg and the rates ranged from 1.7 g/hr to 40.3 g/hr. There was no clear relationship between the condition of an individual stove and its particulate emissions. In addition, there was no clear statistical relationship (no R2 values greater than 0.9) between emission factors and either burn rate or fuel moisture for catalytic stoves, non-catalytic stoves or for both categories combined. While it is a generally accepted fact that lower burn rates, wet wood and degraded stoves tend to produce higher emission factors, there were, as previously discussed, so many inherent variables that the effects of individual parameters were unable to be determined. Average fuel moisture, particulate emissions, burn rate and outdoor temperature are shown in Table 3-7 for Klamath Falls and in Table 3-8 for Portland. A summary of particulate emission results by stove grouping (catalytic, non-catalytic and all stoves) and city are presented 31 Table 3-3 Individual Test Results for Klamath Falls Stoves KF01 – KF04 Home Code KF01 KF02 KF03a KF04a Stove Model Quadrafire 2100 Non-Catalytic Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic Haughs 171E Non-Catalytic Earthstove 1003-C Catalytic Week 32 A B C A B C B C A B Start Date 11/25/98 12/04/98 12/10/98 11/08/98 12/02/98 12/09/98 11/22/98 12/06/98 11/14/98 12/02/98 End Date 12/02/98 12/10/98 12/16/98 11/15/98 12/09/98 12/16/98 11/29/98 12/13/98 11/21/98 12/09/98 Total Data Collection Hours 168.0 141.0 142.8 168.0 168.0 168.0 168.0 168.0 168.0 167.0 % Time Stove Burned 54.9 66.3 30.3 100.0 97.5 79.6 85.0 95.2 100.0 100.0 Avg. Stack Temp. (°F) 478 493 482 448 412 374 430 475 398 510 Avg. %O2 (Flue >100 °F) 15.87 15.54 16.29 14.53 14.52 15.15 17.58 16.52 15.42 12.59 Fuel Mass (Wet kg) 134.5 145.0 77.3 196.4 207.6 142.5 133.8 165.8 184.4 212.2 Fuel Moisture (% Dry Basis) 20.2 24.5 31.4 20.8 21.5 19.6 14.5 18.8 21.6 19.5 AWES Flow Rate (l/min) 0.985 0.985 0.985 1.124 1.124 1.124 1.038 1.038 1.042 1.042 Sample Time (min)/Cycle (min) 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 Indoor Ambient Temp. (°F) 70 62 72 67 57 54 75 71 75 71 Outdoor Ambient Temp. (°F) 37 17 30 33 22 29 38 23 37 2 (Continued) Table 3-3 (continued) Individual Test Results for Klamath Falls Stoves KF01 – KF04 Home Code KF01 KF02 KF03a KF04a Stove Model Quadrafire 2100 Non-Catalytic Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic Haughs 171E Non-Catalytic Earthstove 1002-C Catalytic Week B C A B C B C A B Rinse Particulate (g) 91.2 163.1 39.2 307.2 193.6 250.5 60.4 88.4 461.9 439.7 XAD-2® Particulate (g) 57.0 41.4 6.1 103.0 126.4 42.9 30.4 17.2 448.3 458.8 Filter Particulate (g) 139.0 102.4 29.9 136.3 159.6 87.7 55.0 7.4 386.5 687.7 Total Particulate (g) (Blank Subtracted) 287.2 343.4 75.2 546.5 479.6 381.1 145.8 113.0 1296.7 1586.2 Fuel Mass (Dry kg) 111.9 116.5 58.8 162.6 170.9 119.1 116.8 139.6 151.6 177.6 Burn Rate (kg (Dry)/hr) 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 Emission Factor (g/kg (Dry)) 7.8 8.7 4.8 5.7 5.1 5.5 3.7 1.9 17.5 14.2 Emission Rate (g/hr) 9.5 10.8 6.5 5.5 5.3 4.9 3.0 1.7 15.8 15.1 Concentration (mg/m3) 395 466 221 362 326 317 123 85 926 1,139 33 A a There are no data for week A for KF03 and week C for KF04 due to loss of sample and/or laboratory data. Table 3-4 Individual Test Results for Klamath Falls Stoves KF05 – KF08 Home Code Stove Model KF05 KF06 KF07 KF08 Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic Waterford 104.MKII NonCatalytic Earthstove 1400HT Non-Catalytic Country T-Top Non-Catalytic A B C Aa A B C A B C Start Date 11/08/98 11/22/98 12/08/98 11/10/98 11/08/98 11/22/98 12/06/98 11/08/98 11/22/98 12/05/98 End Date 11/15/98 11/25/98 12/15/98 11/17/98 11/16/98 11/29/98 12/13/98 11/15/98 11/30/98 12/13/98 Total Data Collection Hours 168.0 78.5 168.0 168.0 168.3 168.0 168.0 168.0 172.8 171.0 % Time Stove Burned 89.7 96.2 91.1 100.0 99.7 95.4 98.7 100.0 98.3 99.7 Avg. Stack Temp. (°F) 446 404 470 431 424 457 484 384 428 446 Avg. %O2 (Flue >100 °F) 16.28 16.73 15.71 16.00 16.72 16.83 15.64 16.47 17.48 16.08 Fuel Mass (Wet kg) 137.7 70.7 172.2 126.0 158.5 133.7 225.4 238.4 237.1 257.7 Fuel Moisture (% Dry Basis) 10.4 9.8 11.3 11.7 12.6 11.7 15.8 26.8 25.4 25.7 AWES Flow Rate (l/min) 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.145 1.109 1.109 1.109 1.058 1.058 1.058 Sample Time (min)/Cycle (min) 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 Indoor Ambient Temp. (°F) 75 74 63 77 75 70 74 79 75 74 Outdoor Ambient Temp. (°F) 33 40 28 35 33 38 23 33 38 21 Week 34 (Continued) Table 3-4 (continued) Individual Test Results for Klamath Falls Stoves KF05 – KF08 Home Code Stove Model KF05 KF06 KF07 KF08 Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic Waterford 104.MKII Non-Catalytic Earthstove 1400HT Non-Catalytic Country T-Top Non-Catalytic A B C Aa A B C A B C Rinse Particulate (g) 147.4 128.1 74.0 214.0 265.6 202.2 313.1 313.5 236.4 212.0 XAD-2® Particulate (g) 92.4 24.6 49.6 83.1 123.0 103.7 93.1 95.3 26.2 65.5 Filter Particulate (g) 69.0 41.3 68.7 157.6 233.3 154.0 232.5 153.2 342.0 89.0 Total Particulate (g) (Blank Subtracted) 308.8 194.0 192.3 454.6 621.9 459.9 638.7 561.9 604.5 366.5 Fuel Mass (Dry kg) 124.7 64.4 154.7 112.8 140.8 119.7 194.7 188.0 189.0 205.0 Burn Rate (kg (Dry)/hr) 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 Emission Factor (g/kg (Dry)) 5.2 7.2 2.8 6.0 9.9 7.9 8.2 8.9 12.3 5.2 Emission Rate (g/hr) 4.3 6.1 2.8 4.0 8.3 5.9 9.7 9.9 13.6 6.3 Concentration (mg/m3) 240 300 147 295 418 324 434 395 421 254 Week 35 a There are no data for weeks B and C for KF06 due to death in the family. Table 3-5 Individual Test Results for Portland Stoves P01 – P04 Home Code P01 P02 P03 P04 Stove Model HES Trailblazer 2000-C Catalytic LOPI Answer Series Non-Catalytic LOPI 380-96 Non-Catalytic LOPI Flushbay-96 Catalytic Week 36 A B C A B C A B C A B C Start Date 01/11/99 01/19/99 01/26/99 01/13/99 01/20/99 01/27/99 01/12/99 01/19/99 01/26/99 01/13/99 01/20/99 01/27/99 End Date 01/19/99 01/26/99 02/02/99 01/20/99 01/27/99 02/03/99 01/19/99 01/26/99 02/02/99 01/20/99 01/27/99 02/03/99 Total Data Collection Hours 171.3 168.3 168.0 168.0 166.8 168.0 168.8 168.8 168.0 168.3 168.0 168.0 % Time Stove Burned 100.0 100.0 100.0 54.9 68.8 65.2 20.1 35.1 40.9 56.6 69.6 69.5 Avg. Stack Temp. (°F) 413 443 457 311 339 324 356 370 367 285 327 279 Avg. %O2 (Flue >100 °F) 14.66 14.44 13.90 18.13 16.50 17.00 17.65 17.89 17.76 17.16 16.70 17.62 Fuel Mass (Wet kg) 260.2 252.9 258.9 117.6 103.3 99.9 32.5 72.8 85.4 83.6 130.0 91.1 Fuel Moisture (% Dry Basis) 24.0 21.0 22.8 101.2 18.5 26.7 18.3 18.3 23.3 18.3 18.5 18.4 AWES Flow Rate (l/min) 1.058 1.058 1.058 1.124 1.124 1.124 1.069 1.069 1.069 1.145 1.145 1.145 Sample Time (min)/Cycle (min) 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 Indoor Ambient Temp. (°F) 80 71 72 76 78 71 80 74 74 77 75 75 Outdoor Ambient Temp. (°F) 47 42 45 48 41 45 48 42 45 48 41 45 (Continued) Table 3-5 (continued) Individual Test Results for Portland Stoves P01 – P04 Home Code P01 P02 P03 P04 Stove Model HES Trailblazer 2000-C Catalytic LOPI Answer Series Non-Catalytic LOPI 380-96 Non-Catalytic LOPI Flushbay-96 Catalytic Week B C A B C A B C A B C Rinse Particulate (g) 428.5 376.7 682.1 201.4 272.5 271.8 49.0 81.0 85.9 97.4 118.2 133.7 XAD-2® Particulate (g) 262.2 260.2 230.9 75.3 232.4 96.1 11.9 14.6 23.2 34.5 39.3 27.4 Filter Particulate (g) 625.3 506.5 385.5 182.2 335.2 199.9 (5.0) 13.5 1.3 47.9 71.2 50.7 Total Particulate (g) (Blank Subtracted) 1,316.0 1,143.4 1,298.5 458.9 840.1 567.8 55.8 109.1 110.4 179.8 228.7 211.8 Fuel Mass (Dry kg) 209.8 209.0 210.9 58.5 87.2 78.9 27.5 61.5 69.2 70.7 109.7 77.0 Burn Rate (kg (Dry)/hr) 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.7 Emission Factor (g/kg (Dry)) 15.0 12.9 13.5 19.4 17.5 14.3 5.9 7.1 5.8 5.4 5.0 5.9 Emission Rate (g/hr) 18.4 16.0 16.9 12.3 13.3 10.3 4.7 7.4 5.8 4.0 4.7 3.9 Concentration (mg/m3) 908 803 913 553 814 577 192 215 188 206 213 198 37 A Table 3-6 Individual Test Results for Portland Stoves P05 – P08 Home Code P05 P06 P07 P08a Stove Model LOPI Flex-95 Catalytic Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic LOPI 520/96 Non-Catalytic Vermont Castings Defiant Encore Catalytic Week 38 A B C A B C A B C A B Start Date 01/14/99 01/22/99 01/30/99 01/23/99 01/30/99 02/07/99 01/20/99 01/27/99 02/03/99 01/22/99 01/29/99 End Date 01/21/99 01/29/99 02/06/99 01/30/99 02/06/99 02/14/99 01/27/99 02/03/99 02/10/99 01/29/99 02/05/99 Total Data Collection Hours 167.3 168.0 168.0 168.0 168.0 166.8 168.0 168.0 168.0 133.3 97.8 % Time Stove Burned 12.0 19.9 20.1 82.7 84.5 91.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.3 38.4 Avg. Stack Temp. (°F) 334 403 372 475 464 485 348 327 342 343 383 Avg. %O2 (Flue >100 °F) 18.50 18.12 18.32 15.52 15.55 14.07 15.14 15.14 14.13 16.93 16.72 Fuel Mass (Wet kg) 48.6 32.7 38.1 412.5 373.1 351.7 487.2 517.4 406.1 211.8 76.2 Fuel Moisture (% Dry Basis) 19.3 19.0 19.0 100.8 105.0 101.2 101.2 105.0 24.8 24.8 25.0 AWES Flow Rate (l/min) 1.038 1.038 1.038 1.042 1.042 1.042 1.109 1.109 1.109 1.078 1.078 Sample Time (min)/Cycle (min) 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 2/15 Indoor Ambient Temp. (°F) 73 72 70 71 69 72 69 69 71 71 74 Outdoor Ambient Temp. (°F) 48 42 44 42 44 41 41 45 41 42 44 (Continued) Table 3-6 (continued) Individual Test Results for Portland Stoves P05 – P08 Home Code Stove Week P05 P06 P07 P08a LOPI Flex-95 Catalytic Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic LOPI 520/96 Non-Catalytic Vermont Castings Defiant Encore Catalytic B C A B C A B C A B Rinse Particulate (g) 37.6 51.8 19.2 233.0 284.5 313.0 334.2 407.6 503.1 370.8 105.0 XAD-2® Particulate (g) 6.0 3.9 6.4 69.2 355.7 109.3 326.3 313.1 367.9 182.7 33.9 Filter Particulate (g) -15.5 -5.7 6.4 286.2 322.6 362.8 974.1 916.5 1238.7 252.9 73.4 Total Particulate (g) (Blank Subtracted) 28.1 50.0 32.0 588.3 962.8 785.1 1634.6 1637.2 2109.7 806.4 212.3 Fuel Mass (Dry kg) 40.7 27.5 32.0 205.4 182.0 174.9 242.2 252.4 325.4 169.8 61.0 Burn Rate (kg (Dry)/hr) 2.0 0.8 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.3 1.6 Emission Factor (g/kg (Dry)) 7.0 6.4 4.4 9.1 14.7 8.7 18.4 18.5 20.8 17.7 15.5 Emission Rate (g/hr) 14.3 5.3 4.2 13.5 18.9 10.0 26.6 27.7 40.3 23.0 25.2 Concentration (mg/m3) 169 180 114 508 813 616 1,097 1,099 1,416 714 657 39 A a There are no data for week C for P08 due to loss of sample data. Table 3-7 Average Fuel Moisture, Particulate Emissions, Burn Rate, and Outdoor Temperature for Stoves in Klamath Falls Average Home Code Number of Runs Fuel Moisture % (Dry Basis) KF01 3 25.37 + 4.61 1.27 + 0.09 7.10 + 1.67 8.93 + 1.80 28 + 4 n=22 KF02 3 20.63 + 0.78 0.97 + 0.05 5.43 + 0.25 5.23 + 0.25 28 + 7 n=24 KF03 2 16.55 0.85 2.80 2.35 31 + 5 n=16 KF04a 2 20.55 1.00 15.85 15.45 30 + 7 n=16 KF05 3 10.55 + 0.62 0.90 + 0.08 5.07 + 1.80 4.40 + 1.35 34 + 4 n=20 KF06 1 11.70 0.70 6.00 4.00 35 + 5 n=8 KF07 3 13.37 + 1.76 0.90 + 0.22 8.67 + 0.88 7.97 + 1.57 31 + 5 n=25 KF08 3 25.97 + 0.60 1.13 + 0.05 8.80 + 2.90 9.93 + 2.98 31 + 4 n=24 All Stoves 20 18.68 + 6.09 1.00 + 0.19 7.43 + 3.73 7.45 + 3.94 31 + 2 n=155 Catalytic Stoves 2 20.55 1.0 15.9 15.5 30 + 3 n=16 NonCatalytic Stoves 18 18.47 + 6.38 0.99 + 0.19 6.49 + 2.53 6.56 + 3.06 31 + 2 n=139 a b Burn Rate kg (Dry)/hr Emission Factor g/kg (Dry) Emission Rate g/hr Outdoorb Temperature °F Catalytic Stove The outdoor temperature is the average of the high and low for each day over the sample period. The value “n” is the number of days averaged over the sample period. Values are followed by “+ Standard Deviation”. 40 Table 3-8 Average Fuel Moisture, Particulate Emissions, Burn Rate, and Outdoor Temperature for Stoves in Portland Average Home Code Number of Runs Fuel Moisture % (Dry Basis) P01a 3 P02 Burn Rate kg (Dry)/hr Emission Factor g/kg (Dry) Emission Rate g/hr Outdoorb Temperature °F 22.60 + 1.23 1.23 + 0.05 13.80 + 0.88 17.10 + 0.99 45 + 4 n=25 3 48.80 + 37.20 0.70 + 0.08 17.07 + 2.10 11.97 + 1.25 45 + 4 n=24 P03 3 19.97 + 2.36 0.93 + 0.09 6.27 + 0.59 5.97 + 1.11 45 + 4 n=24 P04a 3 18.40 + 0.08 0.77+ 0.09 5.43 + 0.37 4.20 + 0.36 45 + 4 n=24 P05a 3 19.10 + 0.14 1.23 + 0.54 5.93 + 1.11 7.93 + 4.52 44 + 4 n=24 P06 3 102.33 + 1.89 1.30 + 0.16 10.83 + 2.74 14.13 + 3.66 42 + 3 n=24 P07 3 77.00 + 36.94 1.60 + 0.22 19.23 + 1.11 31.53 + 6.22 43 + 3 n=24 P08a 2 24.90 1.45 16.60 24.10 43 + 4 n=16 All Stoves 23 42.37 + 35.77 1.14 + 0.38 11.69 + 5.42 14.20 + 9.30 44 + 1 n=185 Catalytic Stoves 11 20.92 + 2.59 1.15 + 0.38 9.88 + 4.78 12.35 + 7.80 44 + 1 n=89 NonCatalytic Stoves 12 62.03 + 40.47 1.13 + 0.37 13.35 + 5.44 15.90 + 10.20 44 + 1 n=96 a b Catalytic Stove The outdoor temperature is the average of the high and low for each day over the sample period. The value “n” is the number of days averaged over the sample period. Values are followed by “+ Standard Deviation”. 41 in Table 3-9. One significant result of this study is the difference in average emissions between stoves tested in Portland and Klamath Falls. On the average, emission factors and emission rates for stoves in Portland (11.69 g/kg and 14.20 g/hr, respectively) were considerably higher than for stoves in Klamath Falls (7.43 g/kg and 7.45 g/hr, respectively). This observation is consistent with the fact that the moisture was more than two times higher, on the average, for wood burned in Portland than for wood burned in Klamath Falls. In addition, the differences are consistent with the fact that the burn rates for woodstoves in Portland were, on the average, slightly higher than for woodstoves in Klamath Falls. The increased burn rate would tend to make the differences between emission rates relatively higher than emission factors for the two cities as seen in the values of the two cities. (Higher burn rates tend to decrease emission factors but increase emission rates.) A comparison of average particulate emission factors for study stoves with U.S. EPA emission factor values tabulated in AP-42 (14) is provided in Table 3-10. A key finding of this study is illustrated in the table. The average emission factors for the old catalytic and noncatalytic stoves (10.8 g/kg and 9.23 g/kg) evaluated in this study were higher than the respective emission factors (8.1 g/kg and 7.3 g/kg) for newer units of both types listed in AP-42, but were lower than the emission factor listed in AP-42 for conventional uncertified stoves (15.3 g/kg). In other words, particulate emissions of the certified stoves evaluated in this study appear to have become higher with use, but after about seven years they still on the average have lower emissions than uncertified conventional stoves. A comparison of current and past emission factors for the two stoves in Klamath Falls that were part of earlier studies is provided in Table 3-11. Fuel type, fuel moisture, burn rates and the number of week-long tests used to calculate the mean emission factors for current and past studies are also included in the table for comparison purposes. As can be seen, the emission performance of the stove in home KF02 degraded with time. The emission performance of the stove in home KF03 in the current study remained about the same as reported in the 1991/1992 heating season study. However, the emission factor for the same stove in the 1989/1990 heating season study was higher than for either of the two later studies. The higher emission factor in the 1989/1990 study cannot be readily explained. However, it is probably simply a reflection of the variability often seen in woodstove emissions when different fuels are burned and different burning patterns are used. A comparison between average emission rates based on multiple week-long tests for each stove and the U.S. EPA certification value for each model is provided in Table 3-12. Another key finding of this study is that there is no correlation between actual emission rates of older stoves and their original certification value, that is, emission rates reported in the certification process do not represent emission levels of stoves in homes after extended use. 42 Table 3-9 Summary of Particulate Emission Results Average a Fuel Moisture % (Dry Basis) Burn Rate kg (Dry)/hr Emission Factor g/kg (Dry) Emission Rate g/hr Outdoor Temperature °F All Stoves (8 Stoves, 20 Runs) 18.68 + 6.09 1.00 + 0.19 7.43 + 3.73 7.45 + 3.94 31 + 2 n=155 Catalytic Stoves (1 Stove, 2 Runs) 20.55 1.0 15.9 15.5 30 + 3 n=16 Non-Catalytic Stoves (7 Stoves, 18 Runs) 18.47 + 6.38 0.99 + 0.19 6.49 + 2.53 6.56 + 3.06 31 + 2 n=139 All Stoves (8 Stoves, 23 Runs) 42.37 + 35.77 1.14 + 0.38 11.69 + 5.42 14.20 + 9.30 44 + 1 n=185 Catalytic Stoves (4 Stoves, 11 Runs) 20.92 + 2.59 1.15 + 0.38 9.88 + 4.78 12.35 + 7.80 44 + 1 n=89 Non-Catalytic Stoves (4 Stoves, 12 Runs) 62.03 + 40.47 1.13 + 0.37 13.35 + 5.44 15.90 + 10.20 44 + 1 n=96 All Stoves (16 Stoves, 43 Runs) 31.35 + 29.00 1.07 + 0.31 9.71 + 5.17 11.06 + 8.05 37 + 8 n=340 Catalytic Stoves (5 Stoves, 13 Runs) 20.86 + 2.42 1.12 + 0.36 10.80 + 4.94 12.83 + 7.26 41 + 6 n=105 Non-Catalytic Stoves (11 Stoves, 30 Runs) 35.89 + 33.69 1.05 + 0.29 9.23 + 5.20 10.30 + 8.26 36 + 8 n=235 Overall Study 43 Portland Klamath Falls Stove Group a Values are followed by “+ Standard Deviation”. Table 3-10 Comparison of Average Particulate Emission Factors (5H Adjusted) to AP-42 Values Measurement Technique Method 5H Equivalent Emission Factora g/kg (Dry) All Stoves (16 Stoves, 43 Runs) AWES Sampler 9.71 Catalytic Stoves (5 Stoves, 13 Runs) AWES Sampler 10.80 Non-Catalytic Stoves 11 Stoves, 30 Runs) AWES Sampler 9.23 Catalytic AWES and VPI Samplerb 8.1 Non-Catalytic AWES and VPI Samplerb 7.3 Conventional AWES and VPI Samplerb 15.3 AP-42 Study Stove Group a Reference 14. b The VPI sampler is a sampling train consisting of: a condensate trap, dual filter pack, DrieRite dessicant trap, and evacuated canister developed by Jaasma, et al., at the Virgina Polytechnic Institute and State University. 44 Table 3-11 Comparison of Particulate Emission Factors of Stoves in Current Study to Particulate Emission Factors for the Same Stoves from Previous Studies Home Code/ Stove Model KF02 Pacific Energy Super 27 Non-Catalytic 45 KF03 Haughs 171E Non-Catalytic Study Heating Season Fuel Fuel Moisture % (Dry Basis)d Burn Rate kg (Dry)/hr Emission Factor g/kg (Dry) Current 1998/1999 Ponderosa 20.63 + 0.78 0.97 + 0.05 5.43 + 0.25 (n=3) EMRCa 1989/1990 Red Fir 16.9 + 0.63 1.21 + 0.24 2.78 + 0.10 (n=4) Current 1998/1999 95% Lodgepole 5% Juniper 16.55 0.85 2.80 (n=2) BPAb 1991/1992 Douglas Fir Lodgepole 13.9 1.15 2.77 (n=1) WHAc 1989/1990 Juniper 16.3 0.88 7.0 (n=2) a Reference 13. b Reference 8. c Reference 12. d Values are followed by “+ Standard Deviation”. Table 3-12 Comparison of Stove Particulate Emission Rates to U.S. EPA Certification Valuesa Emission Rate (g/hr) Home Code Stove Model Catalytic Number of Runs Study Averaged Certification Value KF01 Quadrafire 2100 No 3 8.93 + 1.80 3.6 KF02 Pacific Energy Super 27 No 3 5.23 + 0.25 3.4 KF03 Haughs 171E No 2 2.35 4.5 Yes 2 15.45 3.7 KF04 Earthstove 1003-C KF05 Pacific Energy Super 27 No 3 4.40 + 1.35 3.4 KF06 Waterford 104.MKII No 1 4.00 2.9 KF07 Earthstove 1400HT No 3 7.97 + 1.57 6.6 KF08 Country T-Top No 3 9.93 + 2.98 5.7 P01 HES Trailblazer 2000-C Yes 3 17.10 + 0.99 3.1 P02 LOPI Answer Series No 3 11.97 + 1.25 3.3 P03 LOPI 380-96 No 3 5.97 + 1.11 1.9 P04 LOPE Flushbay-96b Yes 3 4.20 + 0.36 5.2 P05 LOPI Flex-95 Yes 3 7.93 + 4.52 4.1 P06 Pacific Energy Super 27 No 3 14.13 + 3.66 3.4 P07 LOPI 520/96 No 3 31.53 + 6.22 7.4 P08 Vermont Castings Defiant Encorec Yes 2 24.10 1.6 a The certification threshold for phase 2 certified catalytic stoves is 4.1 g/hr and for non-catalytic stoves is 7.5 g/hr. b Lopi Flush Bay-96 is now called Freedom. The certification value shown in the table is for the Freedom. c The Vermont Castings Defiant Encore stove was installed when stove was EPA Phase I certified. Since the installation, the stove has been added to EPA Phase II certification list without changes to the stove’s design. d Values are followed by “+ Standard Deviation”. 46 3.3 Polycyclic Organic Matter Emissions The analytical results for 40 individual organic compounds and compound categories are provided in Appendix D. The average emission factors and rates for these compounds and compound categories by stove type (catalytic, non-catalytic and both combined) for Klamath Falls stoves, for Portland stoves and for the overall study are provided in Tables 3-13, 3-14, and 3-15, respectively. Among the 40 compounds and compound categories are the seven and 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that make up the 7-PAH and 16-PAH POM surrogates. The seven and 16 PAH compounds’ emissions are summed and their total emissions used as surrogates of POM. The average emission factors and rates for these two surrogates are included in Tables 3-13, 3-14 and 3-15. A key finding of this study is that total particulate emissions cannot be used as a surrogate measurement for woodstove POM emissions. In comparing the average 7-PAH and 16-PAH values between Klamath Falls and Portland shown in Tables 3-13 and 3-14, it is clear that the POM emissions, as indicated by the surrogates, were higher for the Klamath Falls stoves than for the Portland stoves even though the particulate emissions were higher for the Portland stoves. This finding is significant because it has been suggested that total particulate emissions can be used as a surrogate measurement for POM emissions, and for the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for wood heaters it is noted that the same control techniques used to reduce particulate emission are known to reduce POM emissions(4). A possible explanation of the lack of correlation between particulate and POM emissions is that conifer cordwood was burned exclusively in Klamath Falls whereas a mixture of conifer and deciduous cordwood was burned in Portland. Cordwood from conifers has a higher resin content than cordwood from deciduous trees. Resin is chemically comprised of condensed aromatic rings, hence it is closer in structure to POM compounds then cellulose or lignin. It is generally believed that, if all else is equal, the higher the aromatic compound content in a fuel the more POM emissions will be produced upon its combustion. In any event, this study finds that total particulate emissions cannot be used as a surrogate for POM emissions in woodstoves although control techniques for PM may, in fact, reduce POM. A comparison of overall average emission factors measured in this study for the 7-PAH and 16-PAH surrogates emitted from catalytic and non-catalytic stoves with the 7-PAH and 16-PAH emission factors listed for them in AP-42 (14) is provided in Table 3-16. The 7-PAH and 16-PAH data for catalytic and non-catalytic stoves in AP-42 are based on laboratory (not inhome) tests with a limited number of stoves. The AP-42 7-PAH and 16-PAH values for catalytic stoves are based on laboratory tests on seven stoves of which only one became a phase 2 certified model. The AP-42 values for non-catalytic stoves are based on laboratory tests on five stoves none of which became phase 2 certified. (The AP-42 7-PAH and 16-PAH values for conventional stoves, shown in Table 3-16 for completeness, were based on laboratory tests on one stove [40].) Residential wood combustion has been identified, based on the AP-42 emission factors, as the single, largest source of POM nationwide (2). As can be seen in Table 3-16, the 47 Table 3-13 Organic Compound Emission Factors and Rates For Stoves in Klamath Falls Homes Catalytic Non-Catalytic Non-Catalytic Average Average Average Emission Rate Emission Emission Rate 1 Stove Factor 7 Stoves 2 Runs 7 Stoves 18 Runs 18 Runs µg/hr µg/hr µ µ µg/kg (Dry) µ Catalytic Average Emission Factor 1 Stove 2 Runs (Dry) µg/kg µ All Stoves Average Emission Rate 8 Stoves 20 Runs µg/hr µ All Stoves Average Emission Factor 8 Stoves 20 Runs µg/kg (Dry) µ Toluene 159,922 158,134 146,381 144,568 281,792 280,228 m,p-Xylene 28,460 28,394 23,284 23,134 75,044 75,735 o-Xylene 9,702 9,613 7,761 7,680 27,175 27,014 Phenol 170,260 168,964 160,703 158,889 256,278 259,643 Benzofuran 37,900 37,708 34,891 34,597 64,987 65,710 C3-alkylbenzenes 42,070 41,994 33,527 33,537 118,957 118,102 Decane 164 120 182 134 0 0 o-Cresol 45,957 46,396 36,579 36,852 130,353 132,295 m,p-Cresol 80,541 81,517 68,023 68,792 193,204 196,043 C4-alkylbenzenes 161,273 156,220 121,448 116,622 519,699 512,599 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-Ethylphenol 2,987 3,017 2,545 2,558 6,967 7,155 2,3-Dimethylphenol 4,970 5,039 4,271 4,306 11,267 11,628 Naphthalene † 81,892 80,967 81,767 80,769 83,021 82,750 2-Methylnaphthalene 13,813 13,763 11,540 11,523 34,266 33,918 1-Methylnaphthalene 10,739 10,722 9,703 9,691 20,066 20,001 Biphenyl 6,292 6,259 5,757 5,720 11,104 11,110 Tetradecane 13,441 13,403 12,070 12,030 25,775 25,760 C2-alkylnaphthalenes 11,825 11,819 9,417 9,449 33,498 33,152 Acenaphthylene † 21,069 21,160 20,895 21,028 22,634 22,347 0 0 0 0 0 0 Acenaphthene † 1,216 1,219 1,022 1,027 2,969 2,944 Dibenzofuran 9,535 9,521 8,626 8,602 17,710 17,793 C3-alkylnaphthalenes 6,153 6,334 6,836 7,038 0 0 Fluorene † 6,011 6,049 5,703 5,755 8,778 8,695 Heptadecane 0 0 0 0 0 0 Octadecane 0 0 0 0 0 0 Undecane Pentadecane (Continued) 48 Table 3-13 (Continued) Catalytic Non-Catalytic Non-Catalytic Average Average Average Emission Rate Emission Emission Rate 1 Stove Factor 7 Stoves 2 Runs 7 Stoves 18 Runs 18 Runs µg/hr µ µg/hr µ µg/kg (Dry) µ Catalytic Average Emission Factor 1 Stove 2 Runs (Dry) µg/kg µ All Stoves Average Emission Rate 8 Stoves 20 Runs µ µg/hr All Stoves Average Emission Factor 8 Stoves 20 Runs µg/kg (Dry) µ Phenanthrene † 26,201 26,466 26,086 26,413 27,227 26,940 Anthracene † 4,648 4,744 4,532 4,649 5,692 5,595 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fluoranthene † 9,185 9,339 9,357 9,533 7,643 7,588 Pyrene † 6,482 6,608 6,534 6,675 6,015 6,006 Benzo(a)anthracene*† 1,592 1,624 1,685 1,723 753 736 Chrysene*† 1,739 1,783 1,832 1,884 897 877 Benzo(b)fluoranthene*† 977 1,028 974 1,030 1,004 1,013 Benzo(k)fluoranthene*† 142 153 141 154 152 143 Benzo(a)pyrene*† 432 460 440 474 361 340 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene*† 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene*† 0 0 0 0 0 0 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene † 0 0 0 0 0 0 7-PAH 4,882 5,049 5,073 5,264 3,168 3,109 16-PAH 161,587 161,600 160,969 161,115 167,148 165,973 Carbazole * 7-PAH † 16-PAH 49 Table 3-14 Organic Compound Emission Factors and Rates for Stoves in Portland Homes Catalytic Non-Catalytic Non-Catalytic Average Average Average Emission Rate Emission Emission Rate 4 Stoves Factor 4 Stoves 11 Runs 4 Stoves 12 Runs 12 Runs µg/hr µg/hr µ µ µg/kg (Dry) µ Catalytic Average Emission Factor 4 Stoves 11 Runs (Dry) µg/kg µ All Stoves Average Emission Rate 8 Stoves 23 Runs µg/hr µ All Stoves Average Emission Factor 8 Stoves 23 Runs (Dry) µg/kg µ Toluene 161,197 129,649 153,252 130,978 169,864 128,199 m,p-Xylene 43,433 33,818 42,412 34,146 44,547 33,460 o-Xylene 15,008 11,813 14,463 11,933 15,602 11,681 Phenol 288,925 228,837 246,889 209,798 334,783 249,607 Benzofuran 58,355 46,327 55,553 46,037 61,413 46,644 C3-alkylbenzenes 36,454 26,559 42,873 34,265 29,452 18,152 Decane 0 0 0 0 0 0 o-Cresol 100,976 79,142 93,721 77,008 108,890 81,469 m,p-Cresol 148,328 116,373 134,439 111,970 163,480 121,177 C4-alkylbenzenes 42,786 28,971 61,377 42,469 22,505 14,245 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-Ethylphenol 5,948 4,575 6,515 5,298 5,329 3,786 2,3-Dimethylphenol 7,749 6,068 7,969 6,584 7,509 5,504 Naphthalene † 92,300 76,911 83,124 75,044 102,310 78,947 2-Methylnaphthalene 16,167 12,566 17,788 14,619 14,398 10,327 1-Methylnaphthalene 10,446 8,625 10,770 9,322 10,092 7,865 Biphenyl 7,340 6,043 7,332 6,408 7,349 5,646 Tetradecane 14,066 11,449 12,659 11,057 15,602 11,875 C2-alkylnaphthalenes 7,225 5,433 8,793 7,143 5,515 3,568 Acenaphthylene † 17,432 14,950 16,577 15,233 18,365 14,643 0 0 0 0 0 0 541 423 215 146 896 725 Dibenzofuran 11,553 9,348 11,317 9,775 11,810 8,882 C3-alkylnaphthalenes 2,333 1,545 1,854 1,358 2,855 1,748 Fluorene † 5,520 4,433 5,053 4,379 6,030 4,492 Heptadecane 0 0 0 0 0 0 Octadecane 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,323 13,556 15,219 13,378 17,528 13,751 Undecane Pentadecane Acenaphthene † Phenanthrene † (Continued) 50 Table 3-14 (Continued) Catalytic Non-Catalytic Non-Catalytic Average Average Average Emission Rate Emission Emission Rate 4 Stoves Factor 4 Stoves 11 Runs 4 Stoves 12 Runs 12 Runs µg/hr µ µg/hr µ µg/kg (Dry) µ Catalytic Average Emission Factor 4 Stoves 11 Runs (Dry) µg/kg µ All Stoves Average Emission Rate 8 Stoves 23 Runs µ µg/hr All Stoves Average Emission Factor 8 Stoves 23 Runs (Dry) µg/kg µ 3,201 2,563 2,903 2,494 3,526 2,639 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fluoranthene † 5,752 4,693 5,530 4,904 5,993 4,463 Pyrene † 5,230 4,321 5,159 4,602 5,307 4,015 Benzo(a)anthracene*† 599 480 553 438 648 525 Chrysene*† 659 520 606 465 717 580 Benzo(b)fluoranthene*† 839 677 999 805 665 536 Benzo(k)fluoranthene*† 166 136 168 138 165 133 Benzo(a)pyrene*† 384 335 395 367 373 300 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene*† 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene*† 0 0 0 0 0 0 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene † 0 0 0 0 0 0 7-PAH 2,648 2,148 2,722 2,214 2,567 2,075 16-PAH 148,946 123,998 136,501 122,393 162,523 125,750 Anthracene † Carbazole * 7-PAH † 16-PAH 51 Table 3-15 Organic Compound Emission Factors and Rates for Overall Study Catalytic Non-Catalytic Non-Catalytic Average Average Average Emission Rate Emission Emission Rate 5 Stoves Factor 11 Stoves 13 Runs 11 Stoves 30 Runs 30 Runs µg/hr µg/hr µ µ (Dry) µg/kg µ Catalytic Average Emission Factor 5 Stoves 13 Runs (Dry) µg/kg µ All Stoves Average Emission Rate 16 Stoves 43 Runs µg/hr µ All Stoves Average Emission Factor 16 Stoves 43 Runs µg/kg (Dry) µ Toluene 160,559 143,891 149,816 137,773 225,828 204,213 m,p-Xylene 35,946 31,106 32,848 28,640 59,796 54,598 o-Xylene 12,355 10,713 11,112 9,807 21,389 19,347 Phenol 229,593 198,901 203,796 184,343 295,530 254,625 Benzofuran 48,128 42,018 45,222 40,317 63,200 56,177 C3-alkylbenzenes 39,262 34,276 38,200 33,901 74,205 68,127 Decane 82 60 91 67 0 0 o-Cresol 73,466 62,769 65,150 56,930 119,622 106,882 m,p-Cresol 114,435 98,945 101,231 90,381 178,342 158,610 C4-alkylbenzenes 102,030 92,595 91,413 79,545 271,102 263,422 0 0 0 0 0 0 2-Ethylphenol 4,468 3,796 4,530 3,928 6,148 5,471 2,3-Dimethylphenol 6,360 5,553 6,120 5,445 9,388 8,566 Naphthalene † 87,096 78,939 82,445 77,907 92,666 80,849 2-Methylnaphthalene 14,990 13,165 14,664 13,071 24,332 22,123 1-Methylnaphthalene 10,593 9,673 10,237 9,506 15,079 13,933 Biphenyl 6,816 6,151 6,544 6,064 9,227 8,378 Tetradecane 13,754 12,426 12,364 11,544 20,689 18,818 C2-alkylnaphthalenes 9,525 8,626 9,105 8,296 19,507 18,360 Acenaphthylene † 19,251 18,055 18,736 18,130 20,500 18,495 0 0 0 0 0 0 879 821 618 587 1,933 1,834 Dibenzofuran 10,544 9,435 9,972 9,189 14,760 13,338 C3-alkylnaphthalenes 4,243 3,939 4,345 4,198 1,428 874 Fluorene † 5,766 5,241 5,378 5,067 7,404 6,594 Heptadecane 0 0 0 0 0 0 Octadecane 0 0 0 0 0 0 21,262 20,011 20,653 19,895 22,378 20,345 Undecane Pentadecane Acenaphthene † Phenanthrene † (Continued) 52 Table 3-15 (Continued) Catalytic Non-Catalytic Non-Catalytic Average Average Average Emission Rate Emission Emission Rate 5 Stoves Factor 11 Stoves 13 Runs 11 Stoves 30 Runs 30 Runs µg/hr µ µg/hr µ (Dry) µg/kg µ Catalytic Average Emission Factor 5 Stoves 13 Runs (Dry) µg/kg µ All Stoves Average Emission Rate 16 Stoves 43 Runs µ µg/hr All Stoves Average Emission Factor 16 Stoves 43 Runs µg/kg (Dry) µ 3,924 3,654 3,717 3,572 4,609 4,117 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fluoranthene † 7,468 7,016 7,443 7,218 6,818 6,025 Pyrene † 5,856 5,465 5,847 5,639 5,661 5,010 Benzo(a)anthracene*† 1,095 1,052 1,119 1,080 701 631 Chrysene*† 1,199 1,152 1,219 1,175 807 729 Benzo(b)fluoranthene*† 908 852 987 918 835 774 Benzo(k)fluoranthene*† 154 144 155 146 158 138 Benzo(a)pyrene*† 408 398 418 421 367 320 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene*† 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene*† 0 0 0 0 0 0 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene † 0 0 0 0 0 0 7-PAH 3,765 3,598 3,897 3,739 2,868 2,592 16-PAH 155,267 142,799 148,735 141,754 164,835 145,861 Anthracene † Carbazole * 7-PAH † 16-PAH 53 Table 3-16 Comparison of POM Emission Factors for Stoves in Current Study to AP-42 POM Emission Factors Catalytic Stoves Non-Catalytic Stoves Conventional Stoves PAH Compound Current Study g/kg (Dry) AP-42 g/kg (Dry) Current Study g/kg (Dry) AP-42 g/kg (Dry) Current Study g/kg (Dry) AP-42 g/kg (Dry) Acenaphthene 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.005 nd 0.005 Acenaphthylene 0.018 0.034 0.018 0.016 nd 0.106 Anthracene 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 nd 0.007 Benzo(a)anthracene* 0.001 0.012 0.001 <0.001 nd 0.010 Benzo(a)pyrene* 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.003 nd 0.002 Benzo(b)fluoranthene* 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 nd 0.003 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.010 nd 0.002 Benzo(k)fluoranthene* 0.000 0.001 0.000 <0.001 nd 0.001 Chrysene* 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.005 nd 0.006 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene* 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.002 nd 0.000 Fluoranthene 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.004 nd 0.010 Fluorene 0.007 0.007 0.005 0.007 nd 0.012 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene* 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.010 nd 0.000 Naphthalene 0.081 0.093 0.078 0.072 nd 0.144 Phenanthrene 0.020 0.024 0.020 0.059 nd 0.039 Pyrene 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.004 nd 0.012 7-PAH Total 0.003 0.025 0.003 0.024 nd 0.022 16-PAH Total 0.146 0.202 0.142 0.205 nd 0.359 nd – No Data * 7-PAH Subset Compounds 54 average 7-PAH and 16-PAH emission factors for a total of 16 older phase 2 certified stoves tested for a total of approximately 43 weeks under actual in-home usage were lower than corresponding AP-42 values. This suggests that estimates of national emissions of 7-PAH and 16-PAH from woodstoves are too high and new emission factors for AP-42 should be developed. 55 Section 4.0 Conclusions Out of the 16 stoves inspected all showed the effects of use. However, only six were degraded to the point that it was speculated that their condition would significantly affect air emissions. Routine maintenance or minor repairs could have kept all units in good operating condition if they had been done. An extensive data base was developed from the 43 week-long test runs on 16 homes in the two cities of Klamath Falls and Portland. No direct statistical correlation between emissions and wood moisture, burn rate or stove condition could be made due to the number of variables associated with real-world in-home use of woodstoves. The particulate emissions for stoves in Portland homes were on the average higher than for stoves in Klamath Falls homes. This result is consistent with the average higher fuel moisture content and burn rate characteristics of the Portland portion of the study as compared with the Klamath Falls portion of the study. The particulate emission factors of the certified phase 2 stoves evaluated in this study appear to have become higher with use, but after about seven years, on the average, they still have lower emissions than uncertified conventional stoves. The emission rates for phase 2 stove models reported as part of the NSPS certification process do not represent emission levels of the same stove models in-homes after extended use. Particulate emissions can not be used as a surrogate measure of POM emissions for woodstoves. POM emission factors, as based on the 7-PAH and 16-PAH surrogates, determined from the in-home use of woodstoves in this study, were lower than the POM emission factors tabulated in AP-42. 56 Section 5.0 Acknowledgments The participation of the following people is acknowledged: Members of the volunteer homes. Project Officer Robert McCrillis of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Jared Sorenson of OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for locating volunteer homes, field sampling, and project coordination and implementation. Richard Sparwasser of OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for field work coordination. Bruce Davis and Francesca Volland of OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for laboratory analysis and sampling support. Andrew Scott of OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for laboratory analysis and editing assistance. David McClure of OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for project quality control/quality assurance and manuscript reviewing. Pam Blackburn of OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., for administrative support. James Gillam of Ash Brothers Chimney Sweep for his involvement in locating homes in Klamath Falls, Oregon, and replacing flue pipes of the test stoves. 57 Section 6.0 References 1. Birnbaum, R., 1998, National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report, 1997, EPA-454/R-98-016, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, 1990 Emissions Inventory of Forty Section 112(k) Pollutants, Interim Final Report, Docket A-97-44, II-A-01. 3. Houck, J.E. and Tiegs, P.E., 1998, Residential Wood Combustion Technology Review, Volume 1. Technical Report, EPA-600/R-98-174a (NTIS PB99-122111), U.S. EPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. 4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, 40 CFR Part 60, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources; New Residential Wood Heaters, Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 38, February 26, 1988, pp. 5860-5926. 5. Bighouse, R.D., Barnett, S. G., Houck, J.E. and Tiegs, P.E., 1994, Woodstove Durability Testing Protocol, EPA-600/R-94-193 (NTIS PB95-136164), U.S. EPA, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. 6. Bighouse, R.D., Houck, J.E., Barnett, S.G. and McCrillis, R.C., 1993, Stress Testing of Woodstoves, paper 93-RP-136.05, Air and Waste Management Association 86th Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, June 14-18, 1993. 7. Barnett, S.G. and Fesperman, J., 1990, Field Performance of Advanced Technology Woodstoves in Their Second Season of Use in Glens Falls, New York, 1990; report prepared by OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. for Canada Centre for Minerals and Energy Technology; Energy, Mines, and Resources. 8. Barnett, S.G. and Bighouse, R.D., 1992, In-home Demonstration of the Reduction of Woodstove Emissions from the Use of Densified Logs, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Bonneville Power Administration, DOE/BP-35836-1. 58 9. Champion, M. and Jaasma, D.R., 1998, Degradation of Emissions Control Performance of Wood Stoves in Crested Butte, CO, EPA-600/R-98-158 (NTIS PB99-127995), U.S. EPA, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. 10. Davis, B., 1989, Guideline Series, Guidance Document for Residential Wood Combustion Emission Control Measures, EPA-450/2-89-015 (NTIS PB90-130444), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 11. Houck, J.E., Tiegs, P.E., Crouch, J. and Keithley, C., 1998, The PM2.5 Reduction Potential of New Technology Home Heating Appliances and Fuels, pp.1032-1043, in: Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy International Speciality Conference, PM2.5: A Fine Particle Standard, January 28-30, 1998, Long Beach CA, J. Chow and P. Koutrakis, Eds. 12. Dernbach, S., 1990, Woodstove Field Performance in Klamath Falls, Oregon, Elements Unlimited report to Wood Heating Alliance, Washington, DC. 13. Barnett, S.G., 1990, In-Home Evaluation of Emission Characteristics of EPA-Certified High Technology Non-Catalytic Woodstoves in Klamath Falls, Oregon, 1990, report prepared by OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. for Canada Centre for Minerals and Energy Technology; Energy, Mines, and Resources. 14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Stationary Point and Area Sources, Chapter 1, External Combustion Sources, Section 1.10, Residential Wood Stoves (Supplement B), October 1996, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Manufacturing, Energy, and Transportation Division, Washington, DC. October 21, 1999. Certified Woodstoves List. 24 pages. Group as referenced. 16. Burnet, P., 1987, The Northeast Cooperative Woodstove Study, Vol. 1, EPA/600/7-87/026a (NTIS PB88-140769) U.S. EPA, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. 17. OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., 1987, An In-situ Performance Evaluation of Catalytic Retrofit Devices, report to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 18. Simons, C.A., Christiansen, P.D., Pritchett, L.C. and Beyerman, G.A., 1987, Whitehorse Efficient Woodheat Demonstration, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to The City of Whitehorse, Yukon. 59 19. Simons, C.A., Christiansen, P.D., Houck, J.E. and Pritchett, L.C., 1988, Woodstove Emission Sampling Methods Comparability Analysis and In-situ Evaluation of New Technology Woodstoves, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to the U.S. Department of Energy Pacific Northwest and Alaska Regional Biomass Program, Bonneville Power Administration, Task G, DOE/BP-18508-6. 20. OMNI Environmental Services, Inc., 1988, Particulate Emission Test, Emission Control System Inspection and Leak Check, Blaze King Stove in Home P02, report to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 21. Simons, C.A. and Jones S.K., 1989, Performance Evaluation of the Best Existing Stove Technology (BEST) Hybrid Woodstove and Catalytic Retrofit Device, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 22. Barnett, S.G., 1990, Field Performance of Advanced Technology Woodstoves in Glens Falls, NY, 1988-89, EPA-600/7-90-019a (NTIS PB91-125641), U.S. EPA, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. 23. Barnett, S.G.and Roholt, R.B., 1990, In-home Performance of Certified Pellet Stoves in Medford and Klamath Falls, Oregon, OMNI Environmental Services Inc. report to U.S. Department of Energy and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, DOE/BP04143-1. 24. Roholt, R.B. and Houck, J.E., 1990, Field Performance of Best Existing Technology (BEST) Hybrid Woodstoves in Their Second Year of Use, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 25. Barnett, S.G. and Fields, P.G., 1991, In-home Performance of Exempt Pellet Stoves in Medford, Oregon, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to U.S. Department of Energy, Oregon Department of Energy, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, DOE/BP-04123-2. 26. Barnett, S.G., 1991, In-Home Performance: Comparison of a Conventional Fireplace with a Retrofit Firecrest Masonry Insert in the Zagelow Residence, Vancouver, Washington, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Mutual Materials Company, Bellevue, WA. 27. Barnett, S.G., 1991, In-home Evaluation of Emissions from Masonry Fireplaces and Heaters, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Western States Clay Products Association, San Mateo, CA. 28. Barnett, S.G., 1992, In-home Evaluation of Emissions from a Tulikivi KTU 2100 Masonry Heater, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to The Tulikivi Group. 60 29. Barnett, S.G., McCrillis, R.C., and Crooks, R.B., 1992, Evaluation of Emissions from Masonry Heaters and Masonry Fireplaces in Homes, in Proceedings of the 85th Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association, Kansas City, MO, June 21-26, 1992, paper 92-118.06. 30. Barnett, S.G., 1992, In-Home Evaluation of Emissions from a Grundofen Masonry Heater, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Mutual Materials Company, the Masonry Heater Association and Dietmeyer, Ward and Stroud. 31. Barnett, S.G., 1992, In-home Evaluation of Emissions from a Biofire 4x3 Masonry Heater, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Biofire, Inc. 32. Barnett, S.G., 1993, Summary Report of the In-Home Emissions and Efficiency Performance of Five Commercially Available Masonry Heaters, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to The Masonry Heater Association. 33. Barnett, S.G., 1992, Particulate and Carbon Monoxide Emissions from a Bellfire 28 Rosin Fireplace Using a Simulated Real-World Test Procedure, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Sleepy Hollow Chimney, Inc., Brentwood, NY. 34. Barnett, S.G., 1992, Particulate and Carbon Monoxide Emissions from the Use of Hazelnut Logs in a Conventional Masonry Fireplace, OMNI Environmental Services Inc. report to Hazelnut Growers of Oregon, Cornelius, OR. 35. Barnett, S.G., 1992, Particulate and Carbon Monoxide Emissions from the Use of Palm Branch Logs in a Conventional Masonry Fireplace, OMNI Environmental Services, Inc. report to Clean Burning Fuels, Inc., Tucson, AZ. 36. Bighouse, R.D. and Houck, J.E., 1993, Evaluation of Emissions and Energy Efficiencies of Residential Wood Combustion Devices Using Manufactured Fuels, Science Applications International Corporation report to Oregon Department of Energy. 37. Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University, Klamath Falls Experiment Station, Klamath Falls, OR. 38. National Weather Service, Portland Oregon Forecast Office web page, http://nimbo.wrh.noaa.gov/portland. 39. DeAngelis, D.G., Ruffin, D.S. and Reznik, R.B., 1980, Preliminary Characterization of Emissions from Wood-fired Residential Combustion Equipment, EPA-600/7-80-040 (NTIS PB80-182066), U.S. EPA, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. 61 40. Burnet, P.G., Houck, J.E., and Roholt, R.B., 1990, Effects of Appliance Type and Operating Variables on Woodstove Emissions, Vol 1, EPA-600/2-90-001a (NTIS PB90-151457), U.S. EPA, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. 62
Similar documents
CAN/CSA-B415.1-92 Performance Testing Of A National Standard
inserts, factory-built fireplaces having a minimum fuel input less than 5 kg/h, and
automatically-fuelled stoves. Factory-built fireplaces with a greater burn rate are excluded,
as are central syst...